The Davis City Council returned from Thanksgiving break for a lengthy meeting in which they were asked to make the critical decision of whether to proceed with a shared management plan for the fire department with UC Davis.
As they returned they found a letter on the dais dated November 19, 2013. It was a “request to reconsider and reject October 15th action regarding the joint powers agreement between City of Davis Fire Department and the University of California, Davis.”
It read, “We are writing to convey our strong opposition to the action taken at the October 15, 2013 Council meeting, in which you – the City Council• voted 3•1 in favor of proceeding with the creation of a joint powers agreement that would effectively cede control of the City of Davis Fire Department to the University of California, Davis (U.C. Davis) Fire Department.”
They add, “We believe this decision was made in haste and without a full examination of the proposal’s implications.”
The signers of the letter: Former County Supervisor Betsy Marchand, Alan Fernandes who most recently was a candidate for school board, Former Davis City Councilmembers Mike Corbett and Ted Puntillo, and Former Mayor Ruth Asmundson.
The writers added they found it “deeply disturbing” that the council “would take such quick action on an item as critical as public safety management, relying solely on the simple presentation of a consultant report and without attempting to conduct further analysis or seek any real public input.”
They continued, “Consolidating the City of Davis’ fire management authority with a University whose central mission has nothing do with providing public safety services could have serious consequences in our community.”
On the surface that seems like a strange claim for a university that bears the responsibility of providing public safety for tens of thousands of students and thousands of faculty and staff.
The Davis City Council voted 3-2 to move forward with the shared services agreement. Two concerns raised were the joint powers agreement and the West Valley Fire and Medical Authority name.
Ms. Marchand, et al, noted, “The report points out that the governance will be accomplished through a joint powers agreement, and yet the finished product sounds more like a third-party organization – “It is recommended that the City of Davis and UC Davis enter into a Joint Powers Agreement creating the West Valley Fire and Medical Authority.”
Vice Chancellor John Meyer addressed the West Valley Fire Issue concerns.
“In a well-intended approach to try to create a brand that’s having no agency take over another, try to create a neutral brand, I think that’s become a distraction,” he said. This was an effort to create a name that was not any one agency.
As City Attorney Harriet Steiner added, “The agreement doesn’t require new patches, it is solely and only the sharing of management and employees.” As legal staff, “Our feeling right now is that while we believe it’s a good thing to create a joint identity, or not so much an identity as an esprit de corps…”
She said that it is not unusual for a public agency to share employees and “this is just one example.” She added, “I think right now there isn’t going to be a West Valley patch because there isn’t an organization that has that patch.”
The council also removed reference in the language of the agreement of a joint powers agreement, believing that the shared management services agreement label was more reflective of the actual organization.
Like the previous letter, this letter questioned accountability and autonomy. They wrote, “What does entering into a joint powers agreement mean to the taxpaying Davis residents in terms of accountability of their Fire Department? As noted in the report, the University is controlled by the Board of Regents, which are unelected and unaccountable to the residents of our city. If a citizen has a complaint about the actions of the ‘West Valley Fire and Medical Authority,’ how responsive will the Board of Regents actually be to him or her?”
However, it has been pointed out numerous times that the fire chief would answer to the city manager, just as any fire chief would have to do. The city council added language for an initial check in date of January 31, 2014, and quarterly updates to monitor the agreement and whether the situation is working, in order to address issues of accountability and checks and balances.
Finally the letter questioned the situation in Santa Cruz noting, “The City of Santa Cruz and the University of California, Santa Cruz looked at these same issues over the last few years and came to a different conclusion. In fact, U.C, Santa Cruz is the only other UC campus to provide full service fire protection and represents the only comparable case of what’s being proposed here in Davis. Why was the experience and conclusion in Santa Cruz not addressed in the report?”
This was an issue that Dan Wolk, who ultimately dissented, raised during that Tuesday’s meeting. He stated, “There is no getting around the fact that the presentation last time was that it was comparable to Santa Cruz but it’s not. In Santa Cruz the UC is being absorbed into the municipality there.” He asked, “Why should we be acting any differently than Santa Cruz?”
John Meyer explained that Santa Cruz is going with the UC Santa Cruz chief. He added, “The culture of the rank and file firefighters is not rife for a full merger at this time. I don’t think you could get both labor groups to agree.”
“Somehow we have to build the culture so they’re more supportive of one another, a little less hazing in the field, in the trainings, and things like that,” he added, with the Davis firefighters smirking and chuckling incredulously in the background.
The disparity of compensation was part of what undid the agreement from 2010. As City Manager Steve Pinkerton noted, for management there is a $47,000 difference in compensation and an over $20,000 difference for management employees.
“It would be a huge financial burden on the university to do a full merger at this point,” he said.
John Meyer added, “I don’t disagree by any means that that would be a best outcome. But I don’t think it can happen in one step. Without some of these interim steps, I don’t think the trust is built.”
The two sets of letters were very similar in the issues raised. Former Mayor Ruth Asmundson and former Councilmember Ted Puntillo, in the time they were on council, were heavily financed by the firefighters.
There were important issues that were raised, however, in these letters, but for the most part, the council attempted to address them, removing confusion about a JPA and removing the neutral name West Valley Fire and Medical Authority.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Maybe we could get rid of the city firefighters the way we eliminated our tree trimmers–send them packing, then contract with the UCD fire department to handle our needs. That would allow them UCD to staff up, train and build a team that’s interested in serving and protecting our city rather than squeezing us dry for their personal benefit. The cost savings and cooperation improvements would be tremendous.
After more than 30 years in public works organisations, the value of contracting to entities with no “ownership” in the community, and perhaps even harbouring ulterior designs, is questionable. When our local parks department contracted out maintenance, not only did the landscape begin to degrade, especially “parklets” and street medians, but the loss of dedicated personnel created the perception of lost safety in neighbourhoood parks, making them more convenient bases for gangs and drug dealers. In Sacramento there has been a predictable seven to ten year cycle of the city contracting out then returning to employee maintenance, when the contractors have milked the system long enough and left the streets filthy and the lamps dark. The contracts have also allegedly proven to be a boon for relatives and friends of city managers over the years.
Biddlin ;>)/
You simply write a good contract with service level requirements and incentives and penalties. Private companies do this all the time.
The adage “what gets measured gets done” is absolutely accurate.
While the content of the above letter has been presented and critiqued before, I read it again from a slightly different perspective. A new and revealing message appeared.
Take out John Meyer’s analysis, take out the suspected motivation of the authors, disregard all the extraneous issues and focus exclusively on the content and authorship of the letter itself. Be mindful that this was a carefully timed and collaborative attempt to delay or reverse a policy decision rendered by a duly elected political entity.
The first realization was, where is Don Saylor’s signature? Don was a lead force in discussions of all aspects of the Davis Fire Department in years past. He’s still in a very important public service role. Arguably, he has a far better perspective on the letter topic than most, and perhaps all, of the letter authors. Supervisor Saylor has spoken bravely on contentious public policy matters in the past. The question for whomever created this action, “Was Don approached to lend his support to the letter’s attempt?”
Now to an even more interesting point. Somebody wrote this letter in draft form. It was reviewed and doubtless edited numerous times to meet the satisfaction of savvy veteran public figures accustomed to making public pronouncements and their potential impact. Those who signed this letter currently holding public office had the additional advantage of paid staff reviewing the letter content before forwarding the letter to their superior for signature.
With all that examination before publication, this became one of the most ill-conceived and poorly written documents one could imagine. A document–intended to alter a rendered decision–instead insulted and belittled the same people who they were trying to influence. Examples:
If you are going to publicly criticize the judgment of a person or entity, refrain from using the pronoun, “you.” It unduly personalizes the criticism, makes it a complaint against the person, not the decision. Read the first paragraph of the letter quoted above. The “you,” followed by the majority vote singles out 3 people whose decision they want to alter. Then, comes the hurtful assessment that council majority did a very poor job. They made their ruling “in haste” and “without full examination” of the issues. In addition, the council neglected to seek public input and the vote was a “quick action” and “based solely on a simple presentation.” The simple presentation consumed months of preparation and multiple interviews.
Pretend for a moment this letter was directed to (the deliberate personal) you. How supportive would you be towards a plea (almost a demand) where you have essentially have been described as being reckless and irresponsible and not willing to receive public input? Factor your reaction in this pretend situation in the actual context of fire service issue having been in the public eye for many months, and the object of countless public forums, including several by the fire fighters’ union (petitions, picketing, public meetings).
Saylor signed the first letter with Wolk, Yamada and Provenza
This is an interesting approach to evaluating the current letter. And, while we’re pretending, do we pretend not to know who the “somebody” is who “wrote this letter in draft form” or, at the very least, wrote the talking points from which the first draft evolved?
I was put off by the arrogant first letter making the same points, that one from Councilman Dan Wolk’s mother and other sitting politicians. Now, we have a bunch of has-been-elected leaders also ganging together to publicly pressure our mayor and two like-minded council members with identical arguments to those advanced in the first letter.
It’s apparent who is driving this unseemly campaign. I understand that present politicians are forced to make choices about whether to accept union support in exchange for voting “right” and for public pronouncements like these. But, one would think that obligations to embarrass oneself this way wouldn’t follow an elected official into retirement.
Help me along IPad Guy, I don’t know who the “somebody” is. Can you share your suspicion or knowledge?
What I have not seen from the opponents of a collaborative project between the UCD and Davis firefighters, whether or not it is called a “joint powers authority” are how they feel the basic issues are not addressed by this process. It would seem to me that there are three major issues that their letters in opposition have not addressed in quantifiable or even definable terms.
1) Safety. This is of course the paramount function of any fire department. If there is greater risk associated with a collaborative project, they need to define exactly what they believe the increased risk to be. For example, do they believe that the UCD firefighters are less well trained, less skilled, less well managed? I have not seen their rationale.
2) Cost. Do they believe that somehow a collaborative approach will cost the city more either in the short or long term? I doubt anyone these days would argue against cost savings.
3) Loss of autonomy. This is the closest that I can come to a legitimate rationale for opposition. When ever one embarks on a collaboration, there will be some areas of loss of complete autonomy. This however needs to be viewed in the larger context of the overall risk benefit ratio. Just because the city has had sole power in this area this does not mean that this is the most efficient manner in which to provide safety to the two “communities” in such close geographic proximity.
David, do you know Alan Fernandes’s role in the letter-writing operation? I don’t. And I never had the chance to look into Alan’s activities in this regard. It didn’t seem particularly important to me. But I ask you because I suspect you may know more about this.
One source I know, and another who I don’t know but sent me an email reporting more-less the same thing, said that Alan wrote both of the letters, not just the one he signed, on behalf of Local 3494? Can you confirm that?
The second charge is that after he allegedly wrote the letters, Alan went door-to-door and got all of the other parties to sign them. (One of my sources told me that when he went to Ruth Asmundson’s house, he pressured her into signing the letter “very fast,” saying he was in a hurry and she should just trust him. Ruth supposedly told my source that she had no time to think about anything in the letter. Again, do you know if it was Alan Fernandes who was taking the letters around to be signed?
Even if it proves to be true that Alan wrote and distributed the letters, I am not sure how important that is. However, since he has run for public office–shamelessly sucking up to the teachers union to get their endorsement and money in a losing effort–and likely will run again, it seems worthwhile to ask the question as to whether this man has the integrity to win the public’s trust. After all, it is clearly a violation of the public trust for an elected official charged with representing the people AGAINST those who are contracting with the government to take funds from or otherwise act on behalf of the contractor–in this case the fire union.
http://thebicyclediet.blogspot.com/2013/12/signatories.html
I actually don’t know Alan Fernandes’ involvement.
Thanks Rich, I’ll add Alan Fernandes to the ‘don’t vote for list’ right next to Sheila Allen’s name.
According to Alan, he was not the person to distribute the letter. When he signed the letter, he said only Betsy had signed, so he didn’t even know all of the signatores.
Who did Alan report gave him the letter to sign?
Rich do you really think it’s okay to spread unconfirmed rumors about people supposed actions. I don’t.
Your point is well taken and it is something I considered. However, someone is actually spreading this rumor. Both of the people who told me (what I reported in my comment above) had been told that information, they said. I trust the person I know, but that source said it was what he was told. As I note, I did not know if it was true or not, and I don’t know Alan Fernandes at all*. If I did, I would have asked him.
Thus, I could have just sat on it. But I thought by bringing it out to this blog, David Greenwald could publicly confirm it or contact Alan Fernandes. And the latter is what David did.
Does that help matters? I think it does. At least everyone else who is hearing this story knows Alan denies it. But I understand if you think I never should have posed the question, because the info I have is at best third hand, and in one case comes from an emailer who is essentially anonymous to me (though I do have a first name and a return email address).
==============
*The only time I think I have ever been in his company was a couple of months ago, when I attended a meeting of the Davis RDA committee. I found Mr. Fernandes to be an eloquent advocate for his point of view at that meeting. Alan is a member, but I am not sure why. (The others all have formal roles which put them on that committee.) I was there as an outsider, observing and taking notes for a column I later wrote regarding the present situation of the DRDA, where we have millions of dollars in bond funds, but we are unable to spend them. Instead, all the money is going to bond holders at high interest rates.
Having been in a situations where I have spread untrue rumors, thinking they were true, and in the situation were false rumors were spread about me, I know first hand how destructive these practice can be to the people involved and those near to them. While I’m glad Alan was given the opportunity to deny the claim, some will not read that far in the post, or not choose to believe him. One of the reasons I like this blog is that, for the most part, it does not allow the propagation of rumors. I’d hate to see that change.
Between Alan Fernandes signing that letter and let’s not forget the “Friends of Davis Firefighters” website is enough for me to never vote for him.
I’m happy to hear you are basing your decisions on facts not false or unconfirmed rumors. I hope people follow your example.